Sekarreporter1 law points 1/29, 10:32] writer Vinothpandian: AIR 1986 SC 1682 : Raghunandan saran vs M/ S pearey lal workshop p ltd : If the words of statute are clear , there is no question of interpretation.grammatical construction has been accepted as the golden rule
[
Sekarreporter1 law points
1/29, 10:32] Vinothpandian: AIR 1986 SC 1682 : Raghunandan saran vs M/ S pearey lal workshop p ltd : If the words of statute are clear , there is no question of interpretation.grammatical construction has been accepted as the golden rule
[1/29, 10:32] Vinothpandian: AIR 2011 SC 2990 : sheelkumar jain vs new india assurance co ltd : It was held that when court makes an interpretation of any statutory provisions , it would be necessary for concerned court to have in mind the purpose of said provisions
[1/29, 10:32] Vinothpandian: AIR 1987 SC 1969 : Harsharan verma vs union of india : It is well accepted practice that courts did not undertake interpretation of the constitution unless there be a live issue before them
[1/30, 10:11] Vinothpandian: 2018 (5) MLJ 191 : Anil kumar jinabhai Patel vs pravinchandra jinabhai Patel: Arbitration and conciliation act 1996 section 34 (3) : The delivery of an arbitral award under section 31 (5) of the act is not a matter of mere formality, it is a matter of substance , limitation period of three months cannot be condoned beyond thirty days
[1/30, 10:11] Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) crimes SC 225 : sushila agarwal and others vs state ( NCT of Delhi) ; An accused can move application under section 438 CRPC 1973 before FIR is filed or before filing of charge sheet if FIR is registered , court can impose conditions including limited period of anticipatory bail
[1/30, 10:11] Vinothpandian: 2018 (2) DRTC 378 : Authorised officer state bank of india vs Allwyn Alloys pvt Ltd: No civil court can exercise jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a debt recovery tribunal or debt recovery appellate tribunal is empowered
[1/30, 10:32] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) ALT 4 ( DB ) : M suryanarayana rao vs kotak mahindra bank : Held Banks and financial institutions alone can approach debts recovery tribunals for recovery of dues and individuals/ legal entities cannot approach tribunals as per the scheme of the act , if at all any counter claim they can ventilate same before competent civil court
[1/30, 10:32] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) SCC ( cri ) 571 : Basalingappa vs mudibasappa : Acknowledged signature on the cheque raises presumption of the cheque pertaining to a legally enforceable debt or liability, section 139 of the negotiable instruments act imposes an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden , accused admitting his signature on the cheque , complainant not proving his financial capacity , acquittal of accused by trial court not perverse
[2/1, 09:39] Vinothpandian: 2018 (3) crimes SC 167 : kishan Rao vs shankargouda : High court cannot substitute its views for that of trial court that too without any legal basis , cannot exceed its revisional jurisdiction ( CRPC 1908 sec 397 / 401 )
[2/1, 09:39] Vinothpandian: 2018 (4) crimes ( SC ) 524 : vinod natesan vs state of kerala : merely not paying the amount due and payable under an agreement or not paying amount in lieu of one month notice before terminating agreement cannot be said to be cheating